Secretary of State John Kerry says it’s not about stopping the civil war in Syria anymore– it’s about ending the proliferation of chemical weapons. By Stephanie Gaskell

Secretary of State John Kerry gave an emotional statement on Syria on Monday, telling the world that a response to the “undeniable” use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime is imminent. He didn’t elaborate on what that response might be, but he made it clear that Syrian President Bashar al Assad has crossed President Obama’s “red line” with last week’s chemical attack outside Damascus that reportedly killed up to 1,000 civilians.

“The meaning of this attack goes beyond the conflict in Syria itself, and that conflict has already brought so much terrible suffering,” Kerry said. “This is about the large-scale, indiscriminate use of weapons that the civilized world long ago decided must never be used at all – a conviction shared even by countries that agree on little else.”

National security officials have been wringing their hands for months over what to do to stop the bloody civil war, which by most estimates has killed more than 100,000 people over the past two years. But Obama and his team of advisors have been extremely cautious to get involved, especially as opposition fighters become more fractured and aligned with al Qaeda affiliates and other enemies of the West. And even if Assad is removed from power, what comes next?

Kerry now says the mission in Syria is crystal clear – you can’t use chemical weapons against your people and get away with it. While he stopped short of announcing any impending military action, Kerry emphasized that there has to be repercussions for using chemical weapons.

Subscribe

Receive daily email updates:

Subscribe to the Defense One daily.

Be the first to receive updates.

“There is a clear reason that the world has banned entirely the use of chemical weapons. There is a reason the international community has set a clear standard and why many countries have taken major steps to eradicate these weapons. There is a reason why President Obama has made it such a priority to stop the proliferation of these weapons and lock them down where they do exist,” Kerry said. “There is a reason why President Obama has made clear to the Assad regime that this international norm cannot be violated without consequences. And there is a reason why no matter what you believe about Syria, all peoples and all nations who believe in the cause of our common humanity must stand up to assure that there is accountability for the use of chemical weapons so that it never happens again.”

How the U.S. and its allies plan to deliver that message to Assad remains to be seen. Obama warned Assad a year ago when he first drew his “red line” in the sand. “We have additional information about this attack, and that information is being compiled and reviewed together with our partners, and we will provide that information in the days ahead,” Kerry said, apparently setting the stage for the legal justification behind a military response.

“I spoke on Thursday with Syrian Foreign Minister [Walid al] Muallim and I made it very clear to him that if the regime, as he argued, had nothing to hide, then their response should be immediate – immediate transparency, immediate access – not shelling. Their response needed to be unrestricted and immediate access. Failure to permit that, I told him, would tell its own story,” Kerry said.

Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey and Gen. Lloyd J. Austin III, the head of U.S. Central Command, are in Jordan with their counterparts from several allied nations, including Britain and France, for long-planned talks aimed at strengthening regional security. The talks, however, are now focusing on the worsening situation in Syria.

The splintered opposition forces are still an unknown factor in how all this plays out, and that worries Obama, who has been committed to ending the long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, more than anything. But it’s becoming clearer that he isn’t going to stand for chemical attacks in Syria.

Whether Assad is listening is another thing.

Stephanie Gaskell is managing editor of Defense One. She previously covered the Pentagon for Politico. Gaskell has covered war, politics and breaking news for nearly 20 years, including at the Associated Press, the New York Post and the New York Daily News. She has reported from Iraq, Afghanistan, ...
Full bio

By using this service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or
otherwise objectionable. Although Defenseone.com does not monitor comments posted to this site (and
has no obligation to), it reserves the right to delete, edit, or move any material that it deems
to be in violation of this rule.

Thank you for subscribing to newsletters from DefenseOne.com.
We think these reports might interest you:

Federal IT Applications: Assessing Government's Core Drivers

In order to better understand the current state of external and internal-facing agency workplace applications, Government Business Council (GBC) and Riverbed undertook an in-depth research study of federal employees. Overall, survey findings indicate that federal IT applications still face a gamut of challenges with regard to quality, reliability, and performance management.

PIV- I And Multifactor Authentication: The Best Defense for Federal Government Contractors

This white paper explores NIST SP 800-171 and why compliance is critical to federal government contractors, especially those that work with the Department of Defense, as well as how leveraging PIV-I credentialing with multifactor authentication can be used as a defense against cyberattacks

Federal organizations rely on state-of-the-art IT tools and systems to deliver services efficiently and
effectively, and it takes a vast ecosystem of organizations, individuals, information, and resources to successfully deliver these products. This issue brief discusses the current threats to the vulnerable supply chain - and how agencies can prevent these threats to produce a more secure IT supply chain process.

Database-level encryption had its origins in the 1990s and early 2000s in response to very basic risks which largely revolved around the theft of servers, backup tapes and other physical-layer assets. As noted in Verizon’s 2014, Data Breach Investigations Report (DBIR)1, threats today are far more advanced and dangerous.